4.2 Article

Optimising the collection of female genital tract fluid for cytokine analysis in pregnant women

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGICAL METHODS
卷 458, 期 -, 页码 15-20

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2018.03.014

关键词

Female genital tract fluid; Cervicovaginal fluid; Pregnancy; Cytokines; Menstrual cup; Ophthalmic sponge

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust Clinical PhD Programme [WT102757/Z/13/Z]
  2. NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre [NG0215]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: To better understand the immunology of pregnancy, study of female genital tract fluid (FGF) is desirable. However the optimum method of collection of FGF in pregnant women for immunological methods, specifically cytokine measurement, is unknown. Methods: A prospective study of HIV-uninfected pregnant women comparing two methods of FGF collection: polyvinyl acetal sponge collection of cervical fluid (CF) and menstrual cup collection of cervicovaginal fluid (CVF). Samples were collected at 3 time points across the second and third trimesters: 14-21, 22-25 and 26-31 weeks. Multiplex chemi-luminescent assays were used to measure: IFN-gamma, IL-1 beta, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL 10, IL-12, IL-13 and TNF-alpha. Optimal methodology for cytokine normalisation (sample weight, volume and total protein) was explored. Results: All cytokines were measurable in both fluid types. IL-beta, IL-8 and IL-6 were detected at the highest concentrations (ranking order CF > CVF > plasma). CVF collection was simpler, provided the largest volume of sample (median 0.5 g) with the potential for undiluted usage, and allowed for self-insertion. CF cytokine concentrations were intrinsically associated with sample weight and protein concentration however CVF cytokines were independent of these. Conclusion: Both methods of collection are robust for measurement of FGF cytokines during pregnancy. We recommend CVF collection using a menstrual cup as a viable option in pregnant women for high dimensional biological techniques.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据